18Apr16

Brazil's Lower House of Congress on Sunday voted to impeach the
country's president, Dilma Rousseff, sending the removal process to the
Senate. In an act of unintended though rich symbolism, the House member
who pushed impeachment over the 342-vote threshold was Dep. Bruno
Araújo, himself implicated by a document indicating he may have received
illegal funds from the construction giant at the heart of the nation's corruption
scandal. Even more significantly, Araújo belongs to the center-right party
PSDB, whose nominees have lost four straight national elections to Rousseff's
moderate-left PT party, with the last ballot-box defeat delivered just 18
months ago, when 54 million Brazilians voted to re-elect Dilma as president.

Those two facts about Araújo underscore the unprecedentedly surreal nature
of yesterday's proceedings in Brasília, capital of the world's fifth-largest
country. Politicians and parties that have spent two decades trying, and
failing, to defeat PT in democratic elections triumphantly marched forward to
effectively overturn the 2014 vote by removing Dilma on grounds that, as
today's New York Times report makes clear, are, at best, dubious in the
extreme. Even The Economist, which has long despised the PT and its
anti-poverty programs and wants Dilma to resign, has argued that "in the
absence of proof of criminality, impeachment is unwarranted" and "looks like
a pretext for ousting an unpopular president."

Sunday's proceedings, conducted in the name of combating corruption, were
presided over by one of the democratic world's most blatantly corrupt
politicians, House speaker Eduardo Cunha (above, center), who was recently
discovered to have stashed millions of dollars in secret Swiss bank accounts
that have no possible non-corrupt source and who lied under oath when he
denied to Congressional investigators that he had foreign bank accounts. Of
the 594 members of the Congress, as the Globe and Mail reported yesterday,
"318 are under investigation or face charges" while their target, President
Rousseff, "herself faces no allegation of financial impropriety."

One by one, corruption-stained legislators marched to the microphone to
address Cunha, voting "yes" on impeachment by professing to be horrified by
corruption. As preambles to their votes, they cited a dizzying array of bizarre
motives, from "the fundamentals of Christianity" and "not to be as red as
Venezuela and North Korea" to "the evangelical nation" and "the peace of
Jerusalem." The Guardian's Jonathan Watts captured just some of the farce:

Yes, voted Paulo Maluf, who is on Interpol's red list for conspiracy. Yes, voted
Nilton Capixaba, who is accused of money laundering. "For the love of God, yes!"
declared Silas Camara, who is under investigation for forging documents and
misappropriating public funds.

It is highly likely that the Senate will agree to hear the charges, which will
result in the 180-day suspension of Dilma as president and the installation of
the pro-business Vice President Michel Temer from the PMDB party. The vice
president himself is, as the New York Times put it, "under scrutiny over claims
that he was involved in an illegal ethanol purchasing scheme." Temer recently
made it known that one of the leading candidates to head his economic team
would be the chairman of Goldman Sachs in Brazil, Paulo Leme.

If, after trial, two-thirds of the Senate votes to convict, Dilma will be
permanently removed. Many suspect that one core objective in impeaching
Dilma is to provide a cathartic sense for the public that corruption has been
addressed, all designed to exploit Temer's newfound control to prevent
further investigations of the dozens upon dozens of actually corrupt politicians
populating the leading parties.

The U.S. has been notably quiet about this tumult in the second-largest
country in the hemisphere, and its posture has barely been discussed in the
mainstream press. It's not hard to see why. The U.S. spent years vehemently
denying that it had any role in the 1964 military coup that removed Brazil's
elected left-wing government, a coup that resulted in 20 years of a brutal,
pro-U.S., right-wing military dictatorship. But secret documents and
recordings emerged proving that the U.S. actively helped plot that coup, and
the country's 2014 Truth Commission report documented that the U.S. and
U.K. aggressively supported the dictatorship and even "trained Brazilian
interrogators in torture techniques."

That U.S-supported coup and military dictatorship loom large over the current
controversy. President Rousseff and her supporters explicitly call the attempt
to remove her a coup. One prominent pro-impeachment deputado who is
expected to run for president, the right-wing Jair Bolsonaro (whom The
Intercept profiled last year), yesterday explicitly praised the military
dictatorship and pointedly hailed Col. Carlos Alberto Brilhante Ustra, the
dictatorship's chief torturer (notably responsible for Dilma's torture).
Bolsonaro's son, Eduardo, also in the House, said he was casting his
impeachment vote "for the military men of '64": those who carried out the
coup and imposed military rule.

The endless invocation of God and Family by impeachment proponents
yesterday was redolent of the motto of the 1964 coup: "March of the Family
with God for Liberty." Just as Brazil's leading oligarch-owned media outlets
supported the 1964 coup as a necessary strike against left-wing corruption, so
too have they been unified in supporting, and inciting, the contemporary
impeachment movement against PT with the same rationale.

Dilma's relationship with the U.S. was strained for years, significantly
exacerbated by her vocal denunciations of NSA spying that targeted Brazilian
industry, its population, and the president personally, as well as Brazil's close
trade relationship with China. Her predecessor, Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, had
also alienated many U.S. officials by, among other things, joining with Turkey
to negotiate an independent deal with Iran over its nuclear program when
Washington was attempting to assemble global pressure against Tehran.
Washington insiders have been making it increasingly clear that they no
longer view Brazil as safe for capital.

The U.S., of course, has a long — and recent — history of engineering
instability and coups against democratically elected, left-wing Latin American
governments it dislikes. Beyond the 1964 coup in Brazil, the U.S. was at least
supportive of the attempted 2002 overthrow of Venezuelan President Hugo
Chávez, played a central role in the 2004 ouster of Haitian President
Jean-Bertrand Aristide, and then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton lent vital
support to legitimize the 2009 coup in Honduras, just to name a few
examples. Many on the Brazilian left believe that the U.S. is actively
engineering the current instability in their country in order to get rid of a
left-wing party that has relied heavily on trade with China, and instead usher
in a more pro-business, pro-U.S. government that could never win an election
on its own.

Although no real evidence has emerged proving this theory, a
little-publicized trip to the U.S. this week by a key Brazilian opposition leader
will likely fuel those concerns. Today — the day after the impeachment vote
— Sen. Aloysio Nunes of the PSDB will be in Washington to undertake three
days of meetings with various U.S. officials as well as with lobbyists and
assorted influence-peddlers close to Clinton and other leading political figures.

Sen. Nunes is meeting with the chairman and ranking member of the Senate
Foreign Relations Committee, Bob Corker, R-Tenn., and Ben Cardin, D-Md.;
Undersecretary of State and former Ambassador to Brazil Thomas Shannon;
and attending a luncheon on Tuesday hosted by the Washington lobbying firm
Albright Stonebridge Group, headed by former Clinton Secretary of State
Madeleine Albright and former Bush 43 Commerce Secretary and Kellogg
Company CEO Carlos Gutierrez.

The Brazilian Embassy in Washington and Sen. Nunes's office told The
Intercept that they had no additional information about the Tuesday
luncheon. In an email, the Albright Stonebridge Group wrote that there is "no
media component" to the event, which is for the "Washington policy and
business community," and a list of attendees or topics addressed would not
be made public.

Nunes is an extremely important — and revealing — opposition figure to send
to the U.S. for these high-level meetings. He ran for vice president in 2014 on
the PSDB ticket that lost to Dilma. He will, notably, now be one of the key
opposition figures leading the fight to impeach Dilma in the Senate.

As president of the Brazilian Senate's Foreign Relations Committee, Nunes has
repeatedly advocated that Brazil once again move closer to an alliance with
the U.S. and U.K. And — it almost goes without saying — Nunes has been
heavily implicated in corruption allegations; in September, a judge ordered a
criminal investigation after an informant, a construction company executive,
told investigators that he gave Sen. Nunes R$ 500,000 (US$ 140,000) for his
campaign — R$ 300,000 above board and another R$ 200,000 in illicit bribes
— in order to win contracts with Petrobras. It is hardly the first such
accusation against him.

Nunes's Washington trip was reportedly ordered by Temer himself, who is
already acting as though he runs Brazil. Temer is furious by what he perceives
to be a radical, highly unfavorable change in the international narrative, which
has increasingly depicted impeachment as a lawless and anti-democratic
attempt by the opposition, led by Temer himself, to gain unearned power.

The would-be president ordered Nunes to Washington, reported Folha, to
launch "a counteroffensive in public relations" to combat this growing
anti-impeachment sentiment around the world, which Temer said is
"demoralizing Brazilian institutions." Demonstrating concern about growing
perceptions of the Brazilian opposition's attempted removal of Dilma, Nunes
said that, in Washington, "we are going to explain that we're not a banana
republic." A representative for Temer said this perception "is contaminating
Brazil's image on the international stage."

"This is a public relations trip," says Maurício Santoro, a professor of political
science at the State University of Rio de Janeiro, in an interview with The
Intercept. "The most important challenge that Aloysio faces is not the
American government, it is American public opinion. That is where the
opposition is losing the battle."

There is no doubt that international opinion has turned against the
impeachment movement of Brazil's opposition parties. Whereas only a month
ago Western media outlets depicted anti-government street protests in
glowing terms, they now routinely highlight the fact that the legal grounds for
impeachment are dubious at best and that impeachment leaders are far more
implicated in corruption than Dilma.

In particular, Temer was reportedly concerned about, and furious over, the
denunciation of impeachment by the U.S.-supported Organization of American
States, whose secretary-general, Luis Almagro, said the group was "concerned
over the process against Dilma, who hasn't been accused of anything" and
because "among those pushing impeachment are members of Congress
accused and guilty of corruption." The head of the Union of South American
Nations, Ernesto Samper, similarly said that impeachment "is a serious reason
to be concerned for the security of Brazil and the region."

The trip to Washington by this leading corruption-implicated opposition figure,
the day after the House votes to impeach Dilma, will, at the very least, raise
questions about the U.S. posture toward removal of the president. It will
almost certainly fuel concerns on the Brazilian left about the U.S. role in the
instability in their country. And it highlights many of the undiscussed dynamics
driving impeachment, including a desire to move Brazil closer to the U.S. and
to make it more accommodating to global business interests and austerity
measures at the expense of the political agenda that Brazilian voters have
embraced in four straight national elections.

UPDATE: Prior to publication, Sen. Nunes' office advised The Intercept that they had no
additional information about his trip beyond what was written in their April 15 press release.
Subsequent to publication, Sen. Nunes' office pointed us to his April 17 letter to the editor of
Folha, claiming that — contrary to their reporting — Vice President Michel Temer's call was
not the reason for his trip to Washington.

[Source: By Glenn Greenwald, The Intercept, NY, 18Apr16]

This document has been published on 21Apr16 by the Equipo Nizkor and Derechos Human Rights. In accordance with
Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a
prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational
purposes.